The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) is celebrating a win for small-scale pastured pig and poultry farmers – and everyone’s access to food grown in ethical and ecologically sound ways – with the Victorian Government’s announcement of the long-awaited reforms to the planning scheme.

The reforms acknowledge the very low risk these systems pose to environment and amenity, and introduce a streamlined permit application process for low density mobile outdoor pig and chicken farms, with no requirement for referrals to other agencies nor a notice and review period.

‘While we still maintain that small-scale pastured pig and poultry farms should not have been required to obtain a permit to farm in the Farming Zone, just as their grazing counterparts are not required to, we have accepted this compromise as a way forward to give local councils and communities confidence that our intentions to raise animals responsibly and respectfully are matched by our farming practices,’ said AFSA President Tammi Jonas.

Up until 2015 small-scale pastured pig and poultry farms were advised by councils across the state that they did not require permits as they were generally considered to be ‘extensive’ or grazing systems. However, a VCAT ruling in 2015 deemed free-range pig farm Happy Valley as ‘intensive’ due to importing the majority of the pigs’ feed.

The decision triggered a process that has taken three years to address what farmers, councils, and the state government all agreed was an unintended consequence of an imprecise definition.

AFSA mobilized its members and partnered with other organisations across the state such as Slow Food Melbourne, Open Food Network, and the Victorian Farmers Markets Association, which led to an unprecedented 270 submissions made to Agriculture Victoria late last year calling for scale-appropriate, risk-based planning provisions.

‘We are delighted at this outcome after years of working with the Victorian Government, and optimistic that small-scale regenerative farmers have a seat at the table now that we have collectivized our voices in an organization that the Government recognizes as the voice of small-scale farmers,’ said AFSA President Tammi Jonas.

‘Whilst the new scheme is not perfect, it blends solid scientific principles with a pragmatic approach for planners to ensure that our sector can continue to expand rapidly while protecting environment and amenity. The Government and its departments are to be congratulated for recognising the emergence of our sector and asking for our help to formulate this new policy,’ said Bruce Burton of Milking Yard Farm.

"Regrarians Ltd applauds the Victoria State Government's process since it released its draft reforms in September 2017. Working with partner organisations such as AFSA, VFMA along with many of our clients affected by these reforms, we have been encouraged by the professional collaboration of these stakeholders to work with the government such that the regenerative agriculture industry's interest and best practice have been included. We look forward to continuing the collaboration so that further development of the reforms serves the interests of a regenerative future for Victoria's agriculture," said Darren Doherty of Regrarians Ltd.

AFSA hopes this is the first of many amendments to legislation that is hampering the growth of regenerative agriculture across Australia, from scale-inappropriate planning schemes to food safety regulation.

‘We want to see regenerative farming become the new normal, with care for soil, water, animals, farm workers, and eaters at the core of our farming practices, but for this to happen, we need governments to shift their policy focus from supporting industrial agriculture to enabling regenerative farming.’

‘We’re encouraged by Minister for Agriculture Jaala Pulford’s announcement last month of the Artisanal Agriculture program, with $2 million earmarked to support our members in their efforts to grow food in ethical and ecologically-sound ways,’ said Jonas.

One significant concern that remains is the failure to include other species of poultry (such as ducks, geese, turkeys, quail and squab) in the streamlined process. However, ‘AFSA has been assured by the Minister that the work to include other species of poultry in the streamlined process will be undertaken as a matter of priority,’ said Jonas.

The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) is calling on the NSW Government to secure a future that encourages regenerative farmers by ensuring regulatory burdens on small-scale pastured livestock producers are commensurate with the low risk they pose to their communities.

The Government states that the aim of its proposed planning reforms are to ‘support the development and management of intensive livestock agriculture’ through:

Exemptions for small-scale livestock operators in non-sensitive locations; and

Clarification of the definitions and thresholds for intensive livestock agriculture requiring development consent.

The Government claims that the ‘proposed amendments will illustrate a clear difference between extensive and intensive agriculture land uses, making it easier for industry and applicants.’

And yet by conflating all sizes and types of pig and poultry farms into one category, the package of reforms released by the NSW Government presents a major risk to the future of small-scale free-range pig and poultry farming.

Under the new reforms, all pig and poultry farms, regardless of size or production model, will be considered ‘intensive livestock agriculture.’ A farm with 25 sows on pasture will be called ‘intensive’ just like a shed with 2000 sows inside.

While the Government has retained thresholds that enable an exemption from the requirement for development consent – for those farms with less than 1000 birds or 200 pigs or 20 sows – the introduction of a 500m setback from neighbouring dwellings or environmentally sensitive areas that triggers a Development Application is a major barrier for pastured pig and poultry farming on small acreages.

AFSA supports regulation of farming that protects human and animal health and preserves environment and amenity. We call on the NSW Government to amend the proposals to address the following key concerns:

Revise the definitions around extensive (outdoors on pasture) as opposed to intensive (confined in sheds) animal husbandry. Small-scale, low-risk farms should be excluded from the definition of ‘intensive’ or allowed in the definition of ‘extensive.’

Reduce the proposed 500m setback (buffer zone) between animals and neighbouring dwellings to allow the operation of a pastured pig or poultry farm on a smaller or narrow block without requirement for a Development Application. Any setback should take into account stocking rates and rotational grazing practices undertaken by most small-scale regenerative farmers.

The definition of intensive pig or poultry farms should only apply to farms with a stocking rate that clearly presents a higher risk to environment and amenity, not an arbitrary number of animals unassociated with land size or production model.

Pastured pig and poultry farms must be unshackled from the negative environmental and social consequences[1] of their industrial counterparts and treated independently, because they simply do not pose a significant risk to environment or amenity.

Penny Kothe, pastured pig and poultry farmer and owner of Caroola Farm in Mulloon, notes that, ‘a 500m buffer means that almost all small-scale pig and poultry farms would require costly council approvals. This could cause the death of truly free-range pig and poultry farmers. It will place limits on our future ability to farm in a more sustainable and ethical way. These reforms will definitely be a deterrent to new farmers, at a time when we desperately need to be encouraging people to enter the industry.’

Cameron Mynott of Australian Pasture Fresh says, ‘it is imperative for the future of sustainable, ethical, regenerative farming, that small-scale farmers be able to run under a common-sense, outcomes-based legislation. From a risk mitigation perspective, applying measures and controls to all farms irrespective of their actual size and operations is both counter-intuitive and counterproductive. It has been proven, globally, that animals raised in a pastured environment, with rotational grazing and mobile infrastructure, create none of the issues or risks that the proposed legislation seeks to mitigate.’

‘Applying a simple to understand head to hectare ratio to further define "intensive" is not only fair and reasonable, but will ensure NSW does not see the devastation to Australian family farms that Victoria is currently experiencing. It's heartbreaking to speak to other farmers who are having to close their operations down due to legislative burdens.’

State governments must take heed of increased community expectations for ethical and ecologically-sound produce, and support those who farm this way to meet the growing demand. This is especially pertinent at a time when Australia faces a changing climate and dwindling resources. The current draft policies would deter future farmers from entering farming, at a time when Australia has fewer farmers than ever before.

AFSA President Tammi Jonas states, ‘A food sovereign and secure future depends on appropriate planning controls that preserve farm land in perpetuity. Legislation should also protect the rights of all people to access nutritious and culturally-appropriate food produced in ethical and ecologically-sound ways, and their right to democratically determine their own food and agriculture systems.’

Small-scale pastured pig farmers have concerns about whether Australia Pork Limited (APL) genuinely represents them. It is a matter of material interest to all pig farmers given the compulsory levy paid per carcass directly to APL. We have been alerted to a number of farmers (in addition to me) who have asked APL to please show how the organisation is actively supporting small-scale farms, but to date we have had only platitudes.

For some years now, the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) has been monitoring APL’s support for small-scale farmers, and what we have witnessed is in fact a systematic campaign to undermine the efforts of the growing number of small-scale pastured pig farmers.

Examples of APL’s efforts against small-scale growers include:

APL has given evidence in multiple VCAT cases against small-scale pastured pig farms, and in some cases taken the side of large-scale intensive pig producers against small-scale pastured farms, such as in the case of intensive producer and former head of the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) Pig Group John Bourke brought against small-scale free-range growers Freeland Pork. Given APL’s claims that it represents all Australian pig producers, there is an obvious conflict of interest where it supports one producer against another in legal proceedings.

APL has made unsolicited phone calls to local councils, urging officers to pursue small-scale growers and require them to apply for permits for intensive animal husbandry.

Since the 2015 VCAT ruling against Happy Valley Free Range which was heavily influenced by APL’s testimony against the small-scale farm, APL has taken the position that all pig farms should be treated the same under state planning provisions in spite of small-scale pastured pig farmers’ stance that they should be treated as other grazing systems with supplemental feed. In the case of the recent work to revise the Victorian Planning Provisions by the Animal Industries Advisory Committee (AIAC), the Committee noted:

Australian Pork Limited supported all pork producers being required to obtain approvals to ensure operations can benefit from ‘good siting, design and management’. It considered that departing from the current definitions of extensive and intensive animal husbandry is seen as a step towards transparency and planning certainty.

In taking this position, APL advocated to remove the label ‘intensive’ from large-scale intensive growers as well as from small-scale extensive growers, rendering them nearly indistinguishable in the proposed new provisions.

The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) is a membership-based organization working for everyone’s right to access nutritious and culturally-appropriate food grown in ethical and ecologically-sound ways, and their right to collectively determine their own food and agriculture systems. We have over 700 individual and organisational members, at least a third of whom are small-scale farmers.

We call on APL to explain:

Why it is actively working against the interests of small-scale pig farmers in its work around planning and regulation; and

Why small-scale pig farmers should be forced to pay a levy to a body working actively against their interests.

In the interest of transparency and accountability, we write this demand in public, and ask that APL make a public response.